The problem with democracy is that you don’t always get your way.
The first and only time my preferred candidate in the primaries ended up as President was with Obama. And I’ve been voting a long time. Here’s my terrible track record of who I supported in the primaries and who won the nomimation:
1976: Jerry Brown (winner: Jimmy Carter)
1980: Oops. I voted for a 3rd party (John Anderson) and then vowed never to make that mistake again
1984: Gary Hart (winner: Walter Mondale)
1988: Michael Dukakis (was living in Boston at the time, did some work on the campaign)
1992: Paul Tsongas (another Boston guy) (winner: Bill Clinton)
1996: Bill Clinton was unopposed for re-election
2000: Tom Harkin (winner: Al Gore)
2004: John Kerry (another Boston guy)
2008: Barack Obama (and he won!)
2012: Obama was unopposed for re-election
2016: Bernie Sanders (winner: Hillary Clinton)
2020: Elizabeth Warren (What? Another Boston candidate?)(winner: we shall see)
So while I am very disappointed that Warren did not get the nomination and while I am also very disappointed with the choices we now have, I guess I’ve become used to it. Maybe I’m just more cynical as I age, maybe I’m just jaded. Life goes on. (My top three choices were Warren, Harris, and Booker. So much for that.)
I certainly understand the anger and frustration many young Bernie supporters have about the situation. The fact that I once felt the same way back when I was younger I’m sure doesn’t comfort them, but it’s really a broken record: The people in power keep the power and keep out anyone who wants to change how things work, and the only way we can force that change is by voting the bastards out — something we apparently are incapable of doing. In the primaries so far, young people (who are Bernie’s main constituency) hardly even voted.
“OK Boomer” I can hear them saying now to me. “Thanks for your comments, grandpa, but we’re not giving up.” And I don’t want you to. What I want you to do is vote — that’s the only way we can get the change we need.
Who will I vote for when the Pennsylvania primary finally rolls around? Well, as usual, it will probably already be decided by then, but I’m considering my options between the two old white guys, both of whom have negatives I have to consider.
Guest post from Gail Z. Martin
Here we go again, proving that we as a nation can’t handle a competent woman in charge.
The most telling paragraph from an article about Warren’s drop from the race: “She was hypersensitive to public criticism and tended to overcorrect in her efforts to ensure her competence. Her responses often earned her more criticism, not less.” OMFG, that’s the story of every professional woman’s life and career. Remember the old joke that Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire did—only backwards, and in high heels? The gallows humor about women needing to be twice as good to get half as far? Those are painfully funny because they’re true.
When Hillary lost to DT, we showed that we’d decided the presidency was an entry-level job, no experience necessary—that we would accept a reality TV star and many-times bankrupted failed businessman rather than a woman so competent she scared the Russians. Now Warren is out of the race. Who do you think worried the Russians more—Biden, Sanders or Warren?
Warren had a plan for everything—-which got criticized—-as men without a detailed plan or the guy who doesn’t believe any experts keep winning. Baggage? Nothing that even compares to almost all of the male candidates at every level that have ever gotten elected (and re-elected).
Yes, I will vote for whatever blue candidate gets nominated, which at this point is certain to be another old white guy—-maybe even the one who says he’d take a Republican as his VP. (And how, exactly, is that going to create any change at all, when we’ve seen no willingness for the GOP to rein in Dear Leader, no matter how he shreds the constitution?)
Please, no attempts to mansplain why Warren is so much worse than the men. I am just so fed up with this country’s utter disdain for women that I could howl at the moon.
Gail Z. Martin is a novelist who writes thrilling fantasy and science fiction adventures. Her web page is here.
Yes.
Republicans know that if everyone votes, they lose.
That’s why they have spent 50 years
There are even tapes of them admitting it.
Anyone who denies this is true is just denying reality. These guys are literally against democracy.
cartoon by Steve Sack
At the recent Democratic debate, all of the candidates were asked if the convention should nominate the candidate with the most delegates even if it wasn’t a majority. Only Bernie said yes.
It used to be that each state would pick delegates to go to a convention and then, at the convention, they’d all debate and decide who should be the candidate. Then states started deciding that it would be better if delegates were committed to a specific candidate when they went, so they started having caucuses to decide this and then later primaries (which, in the history of this country, is a fairly new development). And even then, these committed delegates were allowed to change if no one candidate could get a majority.
Bernie and his supporters are now screaming and yelling that this is undemocratic and is just a ploy to keep Bernie from getting the nomination if he has the most delegates.
Apparently, this manipulative ploy is so devious that it was established long before Bernie was ever born, simply in an effort to keep him from becoming the candidate.
If Bernie doesn’t like the way the way the Democrats set their rules for the way they choose their candidate, maybe he should have worked to change it during all those years when he was a member of the party. Oh, right.
Here’s why we should not nominate whoever has the most delegates.
Suppose Bernie ends up with 32% of the delegates and Biden has 31%. This is not a glowing endorsement for Bernie, is it? Should we really be handing the nomination to someone who maybe only has a one delegate advantage, especially when the majority of delegates there support someone else?
Or worse yet: Suppose Bloomberg manages to convince 32%? Clearly, 68% of the delegates wanted someone else. Bloomberg shouldn’t get the nomination when a majority doesn’t want him, should he? No, what should happen is what works in a democracy: compromise. Negotiations. Working to find a candidate that the majority can support.
Now if Bernie ends up with 49.9% of the delegates, then yeah, politically it’s probably a good idea for him to be nominated on the second ballot. It would look terrible otherwise.
But to just make a blanket statement that it should go to the person with the most votes even if it is a minority of those voting is ridiculous.
ventrellaquest.com 